Australia Council review secret and hopelessly compromised

Federal Arts Minister Simon Crean has announced a wide-ranging independent review of the Australia Council for the Arts, the federal government’s peak arts funding and advisory body. But it’s been hopelessly compromised at the start.

“The new National Cultural Policy will set the framework for Australian government support for the arts, culture and the creative industries for the next decade,” Crean said in the announcement, pointing to the “huge response from artists, audiences and community groups” to the government’s discussion paper on the National Cultural Policy.

Crean appears to be positioning the review to examine the Australia Council’s increasingly sclerotic and inflexible funding procedures, which have proved unable to respond to the changing nature of culture, particularly digital cultural practices. The Australia Council abolished its New Media Arts Board, which had previously supported digital practice, in 2004.

“As part of this work, we must have responsive, timely and expert agencies to deliver support to artists and arts organisations as they respond to new audiences and opportunities including those opening up with emerging art forms and technologies,” he said.

The review will be conducted by Angus James and Gabrielle Trainor. And that’s the first problem.

The terms of reference for the review, released to Crikey late yesterday by Crean’s office, show it will specifically focus on the “governance” and “administrative model” of the Australia Council, including its structure, funding arrangements, internal budgeting, peer-review processes and the Whitlam-era Australia Council Act (1975) that governs the agency. But the findings will not be made public, and the man chosen to lead it appears to have an obvious conflict of interest.

James, formerly the Australasian boss of ABN AMRO and currently advising clients in the mergers-and-acquisitions sector at his corporate advisory partnership Aquasia, is also the deputy chairman of the Australian Chamber Orchestra. The Australian Chamber Orchestra is a key client organisation of the Australia Council; last year it received $1.7 million in funding.

In other words, James will be reviewing the organisation that funds the organisation of which he is the deputy chair.

The conflict of interest is made more acute by secrecy of the findings. Unlike the media inquiry currently being conducted by Ray Finkelstein, this review will not take public submissions or hold public hearings. Nor will it publicly report. Crikey has been told by a Crean adviser it will instead feed into the National Cultural Policy deliberations and that the eventual outcome of the review will be reflected in the final shape of that policy.

The National Cultural Policy is now more than three years in the making, having held two separate rounds of submissions under two different arts ministers. But there is still no deadline for the policy’s release. Nor is it clear how this review will relate to the promised Mitchell Review into arts philanthropy, announced earlier this year. That review was promised to be completed by the end of 2011, which now seems unlikely.

“… a conflict between the public duties and private interests of a public official, in which the public official has private-capacity interests which could improperly influence the performance of their official duties and responsibilities.”

It also states that “a situation that looks like a conflict of interest may be enough to undermine public confidence, even if in fact there is no conflict or it has already been resolved”.

A prominent corporate governance adviser to many public sector clients, with a specialty in the arts industry, told Crikey yesterday that James has a clear conflict of interest in the current review. She argued he should step down from the Australia Chamber Orchestra board while the review is being conducted.

Contemporary music advocate John Wardle agreed: “The review does need to be done independently. We’ve already had the wrong people at the helm of the organisation, and the minister is looking compromised by appointing a review team who could be perceived as having a conflict of interest.”

James was contacted for comment last night but had not responded by deadline.

A thorough review of the Australia Council’s governance, administration and funding operations will touch on many aspects that will be material to the governance of the Australian Chamber Orchestra. The funding structure under which the ACO is supported — the Major Performing Arts Board — is not peer-reviewed, and funding is ongoing and recurrent. Organisations cannot apply to be in the Major Performing Arts Board, but instead must be invited. There is no open, public process under which organisations funded are assessed.

The ACO has not been silent in the debates surrounding the National Cultural Policy. The ACO’s artistic director, Richard Tognetti, has been an outspoken opponent of attempts to reform the Australia Council. In August 2010 he told ABC News that if attempts are made to support new media arts or other forms of creativity “one of the orchestras or leading companies might be destroyed”. In a memorable overstatement, Tognetti argued any cuts to funding for orchestras would be “a bit like saying we’ll burn all the books because we’ve all got iPads now”.

James may stand down from the Australia Chamber Orchestra board while the review is being conducted, but doesn’t the conflict of interest still remain?
Wouldn’t he still carry the taint of favouritism even if he temporarily wasn’t on the ACO?

Under the guiding hand of war criminal & former PM, john howard, the Australia Council reconfirmed its principal role as public subsidy to anachronistic anglo-european High Arts. This review will arrive at predictable conclusions (you neglect to mention that Gabrielle Traynor’s most pertinent experience in this area of public administration is as a former director to the Sydney Symphony Orchestra).

Have you made a close reading of early issues of Art Network magazine (c. early 1980s)? This debate isn’t exactly new, although it did seem to have found its somewhat agreeable, least worst, resolution at a certain time.

One can’t help feeling that the Australia Council is being used by the Australian upper classes to prop up the musical equivalents of the whaling (sic) and logging industries - opera and orchestras - for their own entertainment. Certainly there is very little benefit to taxpayers from these organizations which we fund, and which are hugely expensive. Do we need orchestras and bad musical soap operas anymore? Smaller ensembles and individuals do far more for Australian music, actually employ Australians and export our original cultural capital for income. There is not one Australian conductor laureate of our major symphony orchestras.

What a silly headline and misleading diatribe. Has the author actually read the terms of reference in detail or just skimmed over it and gone off half cocked about conflict of interest? In the real world professional people are quite capable of being objective and are not always slaves to their self interest. Love the reliance on unnamed sources and some one called John Wardle to bag Ozco. Who? Where are your detailed solutions to the perceived problems Mr Eltham? Where is the analysis? Can get the content of this article from any second rate artist who missed out on a grant.

Michael Harvey;
Your comparison of opera and orchestra to logging and whaling is bit far fetched! Whilst the price of these productions has become elitist the music and productions are not. I know many a horse breaker and bushman that enjoy the sounds of a 5th Symphony or Camelot. The music isn’t elitistin in fact it is quite egalitarian in its selection of listeners.

Jimpinton;
I do agree with your observations. It did seem a symplistic effort to present a contreversey rather than the facts. When will those who wish to be journalist learn that the essence of good journalism is the balanced presentation of facts and information?
My experience of the Aus Council was that they very professional with areas that needed improvement.
In relation to the circus development, that I have enjoyed observing over the last thirty years or more, I have witnessed a coherent, well structured policy that we all can witness and enjoy today. Over the course of the last thirty years the Aus Council has facilitated the development of many performers from cradle to maturity. These performers are spread throughout the world whilst still attending to their home audience through the likes of Circus Oz. This body of, still developing, performers are being noted throughout the world by their international peers. Australia will reap much bounty from their efforts. And the Australia Council has been their from the very start.
Whilst there is identifiable areas needing improvement there is much to be grateful for in our Australia Council.

John Wardle is a former policy advisor to the NSW Arts ministry and was a key player in the Raise the Bar campaign to liberalise NSW liquor licensing laws for music venues. He is a credible commentator on the issue, which may be why he appeared on ABC 702 yesterday.

The issue with Angus James is not his professionalism or whether he is able to put aside his self-interest, but in fact the obvious conflict between his legal duties as a director of a company which receives funding from the Australia Council, and his responsibilities in regards to conducting the first formal policy review of the Australia Council since the 1980s.

When Helen Nugent conducted her inquiry into the Major Performing Arts sector in 1999, she stepped down from her role on Opera Australia’s board. I expect the government will bow to the inevitable here and that Mr James will do likewise from the ACO.

The Australia Council has done the job it was given. The world has changed and the new Minister has a different view of how the arts could be supported - in particular, by getting funds from non-arts portfolios to support use of the arts for non-arts objectives. What is the Australia Council’s role to be, in that case? It could get new responsibilities that further the Minister’s view. Presumably, it will still have its old responsibilities because there is still a need to sustain the artists now at work.
There is agitation from some to cut funding to orchestras and opera companies, which takes up a giant proportion of the funding for music. Some just don’t like the music. Some see them as ‘instruments’ of the ruling classes.
This reminds me a bit of California, where voters defeat funding measures for schools because well, they don’t have children so why should THEY pay? Its education system is collapsing.
The music played by these groups is extraordinary. Money does not give you ears to hear that. Repeated listening does. If you deny yourself that opportunity, it’s your loss.
By European standards, our orchestras and opera companies are very modestly funded.
But yes, the funding for the rest of music is pathetic and if there were more money for music, that’s where it probably should go.
By the way, this criticism is never made of the visual arts. Why not? The imbalance is just as great. Almost all the visual arts funding goes to the major galleries. Ahh, but not through the Australia Council.
To the enquiry again: Ben is right, there is a conflict of interest. And why should the inquiry be secret?
My question is: Why, once again, is such an inquiry in the hands of business people. Business and the market are not everything. The arts are only peripherally about business and marketing. The Australia Council is led by business people. Why this syndrome? Why does such a review not include someone who has been through the arts fire?

Mike Flanagan: Thanks old boy you’ve proved my point by mentioning Circus OZ
Mr Letts: “By the way, this criticism is never made of the visual arts. Why not?” Because if they do half-arsed forgeries of centuries-old material and pass it off as important contributions to contemporary culture worthy of MILLIONS of dollars worth of public funding they would be jailed.

What a silly response from jimpintin. That would be the wheezing sound of the major arts companies trying to justify the grants they receive.

When Nugent reviewed the companies there was an expectation from everyone that it would lead to a proud Australian culture on our stages. Works would be commissioned, new audiences found and young artists supported. For the millions upon millions upon millions of dollars the government was expecting a lively, bright, diverse and cutting edge performing arts sector.

It hasn’t happened and they squandered their opportunity. The funding pool for grants shrank, new artforms emerged and yet the community has changed and the stages are still white.

The result: a government review and a lot of pissed off people in the industry. What a shock.

If only jimpintin had the courage to use his real name. If he’d paid even the slightest attention to the world around his North Shore/Eastern Suburbs/Toorak home, he would have heard about the big ‘win’ for artists in NSW that came about becuase of John Wardle’s work.

He’s done more for artist jobs than he would have done gas-bagging. Get a life.

Dick Letts makes a number of good points, with which I wholeheartedly agree.

The Australia Council has, by-and-large, delivered the programs which the current policy settings dictate for it. The criticism of it is generally motivated by those who see the current status quo as something of a gridlock or impasse: the Council literally can’t free up more funding for different priorities, as it is locked into the current structure. That’s no doubt why the Council has featured so prominently in many National Cultural Policy submissions, many of which envisage a different role for the body.

I also agree that the visual arts sector is similarly weighted towards big institutions in policy and funding terms. Big galleries are largely funded by the states; the states overwhelmingly fund visual arts via the capital city galleries; funding for artists almost all comes from the Australia Council’s visual arts and craft board. Music is certainly not unique: the weighting towards big institutions occurs across levels of government and artforms.

It’s also worth pointing out that many of these institutions present, promote and employ artists, so it’s not an either/or equation. But, on the other hand, the funding pool is limited, so the current system means that organisations get recurrently funded year after year, while funding for individual artists or small collectives dwindles.

Mike Harey;
I am confused by your claiming that the success that Circus Oz displays, supports your dismissal of the Aus Council’s perceived elitist interest in tradition procenium theatre. I see Circus Oz as a dynamic and creative company and as such is stark evidence of the value we have gained from the operations of Australia Council since the Nugent Reports.
Sure we can , and should, aspire to get better value from the Australia Council but don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.